Eric C. Parent

Bio: Eric C. Parent is an academic researcher from University of Alberta. The author has contributed to research in topics: Scoliosis & Cobb angle. The author has an hindex of 31, co-authored 103 publications receiving 3479 citations. Previous affiliations of Eric C. Parent include American Physical Therapy Association & Alberta Health Services.

Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetic influences.

Abstract: Study design A literature review. Objective To synthesize the scientific literature on the prevalence of lumbar disc degeneration and factors associated with its occurrence, including genetic influences. Methods A literature review was conducted of the prevalence of disc degeneration. Studies of the etiology of disc degeneration were summarized, with particular attention given to studies of genetic influences. Results and conclusions There are extreme variations in the reported prevalence of specific degenerative findings of the lumbar spine among studies, which cannot be explained entirely by age or other identifiable risk factors (e.g., prevalence figures for disc narrowing varied from 3% to 56%). It is likely that these variations are due, in great part, to inconsistencies in case definitions and measurements, which are impeding epidemiologic research on disc degeneration. Research conducted over the past decade has led to a dramatic shift in the understanding of disc degeneration and its etiology. Previously, heavy physical loading was the main suspected risk factor for disc degeneration. However, results of exposure-discordant monozygotic and classic twin studies suggest that physical loading specific to occupation and sport has a relatively minor role in disc degeneration, beyond that of upright postures and routine activities of daily living. Recent research indicates that heredity has a dominant role in disc degeneration, explaining 74% of the variance in adult populations studied to date. Since 1998, genetic influences have been confirmed by the identification of several gene forms associated with disc degeneration.

2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth.

Abstract: The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) produced its first guidelines in 2005 and renewed them in 2011. Recently published high-quality clinical trials on the effect of conservative treatment approaches (braces and exercises) for idiopathic scoliosis prompted us to update the last guidelines’ version. The objective was to align the guidelines with the new scientific evidence to assure faster knowledge transfer into clinical practice of conservative treatment for idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS). Physicians, researchers and allied health practitioners working in the area of CTIS were involved in the development of the 2016 guidelines. Multiple literature reviews reviewing the evidence on CTIS (assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) and other CTIS) were conducted. Documents, recommendations and practical approach flow charts were developed using a Delphi procedure. The process was completed with the Consensus Session held during the first combined SOSORT/IRSSD Meeting held in Banff, Canada, in May 2016. The contents of the new 2016 guidelines include the following: background on idiopathic scoliosis, description of CTIS approaches for various populations with flow-charts for clinical practice, as well as literature reviews and recommendations on assessment, bracing, PSSE and other CTIS. The present guidelines include a total of 68 recommendations divided into following topics: bracing (n = 25), PSSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (n = 12), PSSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (n = 6), other conservative treatments (n = 2), respiratory function and exercises (n = 3), general sport activities (n = 6); and assessment (n = 14). According to the agreed strength and level of evidence rating scale, there were 2 recommendations on bracing and 1 recommendation on PSSE that reached level of recommendation “I” and level of evidence “II”. Three recommendations reached strength of recommendation A based on the level of evidence I (2 for bracing and one for assessment); 39 recommendations reached strength of recommendation B (20 for bracing, 13 for PSSE, and 6 for assessment).The number of paper for each level of evidence for each treatment is shown in Table 8. The 2016 SOSORT guidelines were developed based on the current evidence on CTIS. Over the last 5 years, high-quality evidence has started to emerge, particularly in the areas of efficacy of bracing (one large multicentre trial) and PSSE (three single-centre randomized controlled trials). Several grade A recommendations were presented. Despite the growing high-quality evidence, the heterogeneity of the study protocols limits generalizability of the recommendations. There is a need for standardization of research methods of conservative treatment effectiveness, as recognized by SOSORT and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) non-operative management Committee.

Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus musculature

Abstract: OBJECTIVES To evaluate the intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) in obtaining thickness measurements of the transversus abdominis (TrA) and lumbar multifidus muscles at rest and during contractions. DESIGN Single-group repeated-measures reliability study. SETTING University and orthopedic physical therapy clinic. PARTICIPANTS A volunteer sample of adults (N=30) with current nonspecific low back pain (LBP) was examined by 2 clinicians with minimal RUSI experience. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Thickness measurements of the TrA and lumbar multifidus muscles at rest and during contractions were obtained by using RUSI during 2 sessions 1 to 3 days apart. Percent thickness change was calculated as thickness(contracted)-thickness(rest)/thickness(rest). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to estimate reliability. RESULTS By using the mean of 2 measures, intraexaminer reliability point estimates (ICC(3,2)) ranged from 0.96 to 0.99 for same-day comparisons and from 0.87 to 0.98 for between-day comparisons. Interexaminer reliability estimates (ICC(2,2)) ranged from 0.88 to 0.94 for within-day comparisons and from 0.80 to 0.92 for between-day comparisons. Reliability estimates comparing measurements by the 2 examiners of the same image (ICC(2,2)) ranged from 0.96 to 0.98. Reliability estimates were lower for percent thickness change measures than the corresponding single thickness measures for all conditions. CONCLUSIONS RUSI thickness measurements of the TrA and lumbar multifidus muscles in patients with LBP, when based on the mean of 2 measures, are highly reliable when taken by a single examiner and adequately reliable when taken by different examiners.

Machine learning

Abstract: Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it?

Abstract: and Introduction Abstract Study Design: Review and reinterpretation of existing literature. Objective: To suggest how intervertebral disc degeneration might be distinguished from the physiologic processes of growth, aging, healing, and adaptive remodeling. Summary of Background Data: The research literature concerning disc degeneration is particularly diverse, and there are no accepted definitions to guide biomedical research, or medicolegal practice. Definitions: The process of disc degeneration is an aberrant, cell-mediated response to progressive structural failure. A degenerate disc is one with structural failure combined with accelerated or advanced signs of aging. Early degenerative changes should refer to accelerated age-related changes in a structurally intact disc. Degenerative disc disease should be applied to a degenerate disc that is also painful. Justification: Structural defects such as endplate fracture, radial fissures, and herniation are easily detected, unambiguous markers of impaired disc function. They are not inevitable with age and are more closely related to pain than any other feature of aging discs. Structural failure is irreversible because adult discs have limited healing potential. It also progresses by physical and biologic mechanisms, and, therefore, is a suitable marker for a degenerative process. Biologic progression occurs because structural failure uncouples the local mechanical environment of disc cells from the overall loading of the disc, so that disc cell responses can be inappropriate or aberrant. Animal models confirm that cell-mediated changes always follow structural failure caused by trauma. This definition of disc degeneration simplifies the issue of causality: excessive mechanical loading disrupts a disc's structure and precipitates a cascade of cell-mediated responses, leading to further disruption. Underlying causes of disc degeneration include genetic inheritance, age, inadequate metabolite transport, and loading history, all of which can weaken discs to such an extent that structural failure occurs during the activities of daily living. The other closely related definitions help to distinguish between degenerate and injured discs, and between discs that are and are not painful.

Lumbar Disc Disorders and Low-Back Pain: Socioeconomic Factors and Consequences

Abstract: Socioeconomic factors are important risk factors for lumbar pain and disability. The total costs of low-back pain in the United States exceed $100 billion per year. Two-thirds of these costs are indirect, due to lost wages and reduced productivity. Each year, the fewer than 5% of the patients who have an episode of low-back pain account for 75% of the total costs. Because indirect costs rely heavily on changes in work status, total costs are difficult to calculate for many women and students as well as elderly and disabled patients. These methodologic challenges notwithstanding, the toll of lumbar disc disorders is enormous, underscoring the critical importance of identifying strategies to prevent these disorders and their consequences.